ORDER

(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 123 of 2006.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party No. 1 to pay the insured amount of buffalo to the respondent No. 1 – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of the order.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the buffalo of the complainant was insured with the appellant – The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.02.2005 to 14.05.2006 for sum of Rs. 15,000/-.  The insured buffalo was allotted tag No. 1697/253800.  It was alleged that during the validity of the policy of insurance, the insured buffalo died on 27.01.2006.  The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and also submitted the tag of the insured buffalo with the insurance company.  However, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.

3.       The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on receipt of the intimation of death of the insured buffalo, Sh. Chandrapal Singh Tomer was appointed as investigator; that the investigator had found that there was no tag in the ear of the dead buffalo; that there was difference in the identity of the insured buffalo and the dead buffalo; that in the postmortem report, the Veterinary Officer has mentioned the tag number of the animal on the saying of the complainant and without seeing the tag and other documents; that the claim lodged by the complainant is not genuine and that there was no deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

4.       The bank also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant had purchased the buffalo after taking loan from the bank and that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint against the insurance company vide impugned order dated 19.06.2010 in the above manner.  Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

6.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.    

7.       The insurance company has taken the stand that since the investigator has not found any tag in the ear of the dead buffalo and the identity of the dead buffalo was not established and it was not proved that the buffalo which had died, was the one which the insured with the appellant and, as such, the claim of the complainant was not payable and was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

8.       There is no dispute with regard to the tag that at the time of insuring the buffalo, tag bearing No. 1697/253800 was pierced in the ear of the buffalo.  In the claim form dated 30.01.2006 (Paper No. 5 of the original record), duly signed by the Veterinary Officer and also by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Darao, the tag number of the dead animal has been mentioned as 1697 and it has further been mentioned that the buffalo of the complainant carrying the above tag No. 1697 had died on 27.01.2006.  In the postmortem report of the buffalo (Paper No. 5/5 of the original record), the tag number of the buffalo has been mentioned as 1697/253800.  The said postmortem report has duly been signed by Dr. G.S. Dhami, Veterinary Officer, Kichha and in the said report, the Veterinary Officer has certified that the medical examination of the dead buffalo was done by him at the time of insurance.  The Veterinary Officer has also stated that on the basis of tag, he has identified the dead buffalo as the one which was insured.  The Veterinary Officer has further stated that at the time of death of the buffalo, tag was found in the ear of the animal.  The postmortem of the buffalo was done on 27.01.2006 itself at 11:00 a.m.  Full details of the buffalo have also been given in the postmortem report by the Veterinary Officer.

9.       The complainant has stated in his affidavit filed before the District Forum that after getting the postmortem of the dead buffalo done, the Veterinary Officer had cut the ear of the buffalo and had taken the same along with him.  The complainant has also stated that the investigator had come to his house after the postmortem of the dead buffalo by the Veterinary Officer and after the Veterinary Officer had taken the ear of the dead buffalo along with him.  It is important to mention here that the investigator has not mentioned in his report that at the time of his visit, the ear of the dead buffalo was not found cut.

10.     It is a settled law that the tag is only for the identity of the animal and if the identity of the animal is otherwise established, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated.  Even otherwise, in the present case, the Veterinary Officer had found the tag in the ear of the buffalo at the time of conducting the postmortem and had found the same tag number which was allotted to the insured buffalo at the time of effecting the insurance.  The Veterinary Officer has also identified the dead buffalo as the one which was insured.  As is stated above, the postmortem of the dead buffalo was done on the date of its death itself.  When the Veterinary Officer had identified the dead buffalo on the basis of tag as the one which was insured, there was no room for any doubt and the insurance company was not at all justified in saying that the identity of the dead buffalo could not be proved and that there was no tag in the ear of the dead buffalo.  The identity of the dead buffalo was duly established on record and the insurance company was not at all justified in repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant.

11.     As is stated above, the tag is only for the identity of the animal and in case the identity of the animal is otherwise duly established, which in the instant case, is established from the postmortem report submitted by the Veterinary Officer, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated.  In support of our above conclusion, we place reliance upon the decision of this Commission given in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Ram Singh and another; 2007 UAD 388.  In the said case, the goats were stamped in the presence of the veterinary doctor.  The goats died due to disease.  The postmortem was carried out in the presence of the veterinary doctor.  The claim preferred by the complainant was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that tags were not found in the ears of goats.  It was held that the tag is only for the identity of the animal and when the identity of the animal is otherwise established, non-production of the tag is immaterial. 

12.     The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference and the appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

13.     For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

(SMT. VEENA SHARMA)                      (D.K. TYAGI)                       (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K